wolfman: Easy distinction. One set of rules applies to your body. Another set of rules applies to your money.
But if the IRS starts going for literal pounds of flesh, watch out. 
minty, if my sperm is stolen from a sperm bank, and used to create a child, doesn’t your absolutist stance dictate that I should support it? After all, I’m the child’s father, and the need is there regardless of my wishes.
Good, so we’re in agreement here. My boss can’t just decide to stop paying me, because that would be breaking his agreement.
Ah, I was waiting for someone to bring up the sperm bank exception. As far as I know, every state–by statute or judicial decision–exempts non-marital in vitro fertilizations or artificial inseminations from the rule of automatic child support from the father. Because he was a sperm donor rather than a sex partner, David Crosby is never gonna be required to pay child support for Julie Cypher & Melissa Etheridge’s kids.
There is a basic public policy reason behind this, as far as I can tell. Namely, no sane man is going to donate sperm if he’ll get tagged for 18+ years of support, and policy favors making in vitro fertilization/artificial insemination possible for those women who need it–and there are many for whom getting pregnant is not just an I-don’t-need-no-daddy lifestyle choice, but a practical necessity if they are to become pregnant, thanks to an infertile partner or other considerations. No sperm banks means no babies for such women.
Must run. wring or ENugent will be along to play with ya’ll shortly, I’m sure.
You mean like the implied-in-law agreement of support between a father and any baby he causes to be born due to an act of consensual intercourse?
Warning: The following is only funny to lawyers.
“And it’s the best consideration in the world.” 
…which I disagree with in the situation I outlined earlier? Yes, that agreement.
Well, this thread has convinced me.
I’m gonna go out and get one of those experimental reversible-vasectomy operations right now! :eek:
In your world, no sane man is going to have sex for any reason except to make babies, regardless of the agreement between him and his partner. No birth control is 100% effective, so doing so would be a bad choice.
I’d rather live in a world where people can make intelligent decisions about the risks of their behavior and what to do about the consequences, and not be held liable for someone else’s change of heart after the fact.
Frankly, you’re blinded by “for the children” mentality. My solution doesn’t involve any children’s needs, because it doesn’t involve any children.
In a sense, I would advocate a man being able to declare beforehand that he does not authorize the use of his sperm for the making of babies, and any babies the woman chooses to make with it are her own business.
This argument only holds true if you believe there is no difference between adulthood and childhood - i.e., if you believe that an individual never reaches an age or a maturity level where he is responsible for his own actions. Let us consider another example; let us consider a murderer. If a man, who is adult and competent, shoots another man, is he responsible for his action? Or should we instead assign responsibility - and blame - to the people who brought him into this world? Or perhaps the people who sold him the gun? Or the victim, for being there in the first place?
If you think that blaming everyone except the shooter is a perfectly appropriate response to the above scenario, then further debate is pointless; you don’t understand what responsibility is, so there’s no point in discussing the finer points of how it applies.
But I’m going to grant you the benefit of the doubt, and continue on the assumption that you do understand that the shooter in the above scenario is responsible for his actions.
Okay, so, when Guy A has sex with Girl B and they produce Baby C, assuming Guy A is an adult, and competent, and consented to sex, Guy A made the decision. Guy A is where the buck stops; he can’t blame other adults who were not present and who thus did not have any part of the decision-making process that resulted in sexual intercourse between Guy A and Girl B. Attempting to shift responsibility to other adults because they made previous decisions that, for example, led to Guy A’s existence is invalid - Guy A, who was a competent adult, had the final say in whether or not his semen would end up inside Girl B. Girl B likewise (assuming consent, adulthood, blah blah blah) made a decision that resulted in the semen being inside her, so together they created - by mutual agreement - a situation wherein pregnancy was a possibility. Just to emphasize it further, let me reiterate the crucial thing:
For the sex (and hence the pregnancy) to occur under these circumstances, both Guy A and Girl B had to make a decision; they both consented, and hence they are equally responsible for any results, whether those results were specifically desired or not. When you choose an action, you choose the reaction. When you make a choice, you choose the consequences.
I have to admit, this statement has me mystified. What you’re saying holds true for the male as well: although he might very much dislike the options he faces after he makes a woman pregnant (paying child support, etc.), he would have to concede that he knew what those options would be beforehand. So if he doesn’t want those options to follow, he should also be very, very careful about having sex or just not have it at all.
I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now explain this, though, please: since both parties know the possible consequences, since both parties made a conscious choice, since both parties engaged in the same behavior, why is it that only one of those parties should bear responsibility for the results of the choice and the behavior?
Beyond hope of attaining maturity or earning the rights and responsibilities thereunto. Let me rephrase: if you don’t accept the responsibilities, you can’t have the rights - they go hand in hand. With adulthood, the rights include things like, oh, property ownership, making your own decisions, having sex.
They sure did; they brought him into the world. And then they discharged their responsibilities by taking care of him until he reached adulthood, when those responsibilities devolved onto him and only him.
Bottom line: taking responsibility for your actions is part of being an adult. And, just to bring this full circle, if you aren’t an adult, you shouldn’t be having sex.
The geometric demonstrations of Spinoza’s Ethics certainly aren’t very enjoyable reading and I don’t appreciate the trouble he went to to do it that way. (Okay, I don’t have a copy of the Ethics handy, so I can’t confirm it was him, but there was a madding philosopher who wrote in mathematical notations to prove his points—sue me if I’m wrong.) You can post anyway you like, but when you comment “I hope you lot are grateful,” but except the uneducated lowest common denominator to slap you on the back and congratulate you.
Well, my original stance may be a little ridged as the man can always weasel out in all cases, so I’m willing to consider limitations on a man’s ability to opt out with an abortion trump card. It should definitely be allowed in circumstances like galt outlined, but not necessarily allowed when the man knew the woman was devotedly pro-life beforehand. In other words, there needs to be conditions were the man can opt out and other conditions were he can’t opt out.
Or you could limit you encounters with women to anal sex. ;)[sub] Pyrrhonist ducks and runs. [/sub]
It appears that nobody has understood the point of what I said about grandparents. This is most likely my fault for not being more explicit. I was giving a line of argumentation which I believe is analogous to that used to claim that men have responsibility and was claiming that line of argumentation to be false. You are the second person to say that the line of argumentation is false, so perhaps I am making some sense.
Imagine two people, one of whom has some sexually transmissible disease, let’s say AIDS. Both parties are awaer of this fact. They consent to have sex. The previously uninfected person becomes infected. Now, I contend that the other is not responsible for her infection, even though he is obviously a cause of it. Why? Because the uninfected person knew the risks ahead of time. Why should the infected person be held responsible for risks someone else willingly took upon themselves?
Perhaps I should put it this way: Imagine one person implicitly saying, “I am willing to do A. I know A will have X risks for me and Y risks for you.” The other person says, “I am also willing to do A. I know A will have X risks for me and Y risks for you.” Each person should be responsible for their own risks, but not the other person’s risks because the other person agreed to undertake those risks.
It is late, so I am perhaps not as clear as I should be. Please notify me if I make absolutely no sense at all, or if a particular point needs clarification.
Agreed. This is why I would be very very careful about having sex if the opportunity ever arose. However, I would argue that those “options” shouldn’t be there at all. A woman could analogously argue that getting pregnant isn’t fair, and shouldn’t be an “option”. However, unlike child-support laws, I’m not sure much could be done about the biology of pregnancy at the current time. To once again quote andros: “Biology. :shrug: It sucks. Cope.”
Come on now. Just because I disagree with you on an emotional issue does not make me immature and you mature.
I just have to say that I was unaware that sex was a right. Dear lord, I’m going to sue to get the sex I rightfully deserve!
Good grief.
Some of you have compared a baby to “spilled milk”, and now “AIDS”?
Get real. A baby is a life, that needs support. They are an individual, in their own right. It is the moral obligation of the parents to take care of the human being they (together) brought into the world. That’s how it works. Sorry you don’t get it. It seems obvious that you regard this (potential) human life as some sort of irritation, or annoyance. The child is a PERSON. They need to be fed, and clothed.
Shit. I don’t even have kids, and I’m not exactly in the bleating “What about the *children?”*camp (though I like kids well enough) and even I can see this! What is with you people? You seem so hell bent on having your cake and eating it too. You want to screw, but you don’t want to take responsibility for what may happen - like the creation of a new human life.
Well, fortunately, the laws of the land aren’t going to let you off the hook there. And for that, I am forever grateful. So whine all you want about it. It won’t change the reality - you help bring a life into the world, you hold some responsibilty for that. Don’t like it? Get a vasectomy, or don’t have sex. It’s that simple.
I really like this statement BK. I hope many will read it and digest it.
Sorry, a man or woman has no responsibility to a fetus as a PERSON. You may personally believe what you like, but people with different beliefs will see an accidental pregnancy as simply an annoying mess that needs cleaning up.
A child does not have the inalienable right to be fed and clothed. Nobody, nobody has rights to these kind of things. If a mother and/or father know they can’t provide food and clothing for the potential kid, then the pregnancy should be terminated or the adoption agency contacted.
Don’t get too comfortable, yosemitebabe.. Laws can change. IIRC, unwed mothers couldn’t always sue for child support. It may be so again. What is legal today my be illegal tomorrow and vice versa. The future of overcrowding, overpopulation, and dwindling natural resources will impel legislators to rethink current laws.
If a woman doesn’t like the options of abortion, adoption, or sole fiscal responsibility of parenthood, then she should get her tubes tired or abstain from sex. Women can say “No,” you know. It’s a two way street and the accidental pregnancy is a head on collision were both drivers are equally to blame.
As a monogamous, married, vasectomied male, I’m not making these arguments for the pleasure of personal risk-free nookie. I happen to believe it is the more Just philosophy to hold both parties accountable for their actions and not give credence or weight to one over the other. When accidents occur and the parties disagree on the solution, then circumstances and conditions should be carefully examined before judgment is passed.
What I am seeing is that one or two posters seem to be focusing on : “who gets pregnant” vs. “who is responsible for creating the fetus/child/etc.”. and deciding that since only one person fits category A (who gets pregnant), that therefore the responsability for it lies solely with them.
Allow me to point out a few things:
A. If you achieve the sort of concept that you are looking for (the man is responsible for the pregnancy only if and when he accepts responsability for it, and that women universally will act accordingly), men, in general will have to find a new pastime. (this is posted mainly as a facitious remark)
B. Our system of jurisprudence is based on holding people responsable for their actions - so that if their participation in an event is crucial for the event to happen, then they are just as culpable. For example, I pay Guido to kill the guy across the street 'cause I don’t like his lime green leisure suit. Guido gets caught. says and is able to prove that I paid him to do so. I am also charged and held responsable.
Since pregnancy cannot be achieved without a womb, egg and sperm, the responsablity for providing the womb and egg lie with the woman, but the responsability for providing the sperm relies with the man. When you continue to ignore the reality that the sperm is a necessary piece of the picture and only focus on the womb/egg, it reduces your argument to the absurdity that it is.
(saw the hand off minty late last night, but wasn’t able to deal with it until today, ok??)
If you’ve read the thread, you would have noted that the OP was a noted troll, which means that the whole OP was not really a real situation.
Since this is GD, but you’re new, I’ll politely ask for some back up to your statement that “. Case books are full of such incidents and histories.” My sense is that it’s rather a rare circumstance.
In any event, we’d agree that for the female in question to specifically hide the information etc until several years later doesn’t seem fair to the male in question.
Keep in mind, however, that both genders have methods of birth control that are available to them. Condoms, spermacides, pills, alternative sexual conduct etc. It takes sperm, an egg and a womb, and all three must come together within a time frame. To only hold one of the two responsible for the results is the greater injustice.
wring, yes, it is quite refreshing to be on the same side of something! (Though I have always considered you a thoughtful and intelligent poster.)
{Sorry, yosemitebabe, but I’m deleting this troll’s presence, and most of your post was directed to him. Lynn}
[Edited by Lynn Bodoni on 06-16-2001 at 08:56 PM]
Nice rant, Jack, and I am sure there are many unscrupulous women out there.
But there are many dead-beat dads. One of my friends is battling her ex husband for support, while he lives it up in Florida, and she lives hand-to-mouth. If we wanted to start on tales of “he done her wrong” or “she done him wrong” we’ll be here forever.
What we’ve been discussing here is whether a man is actually responsible fot the life he helps create. Many of us say, “yes”.
But hey! Who cares? People get killed in a bar all the time! Human life is cheap, remember?
Look, custodial parents don’t end up in fat city because of child support. Child support is always supposed to be less than the cost of raising the child. People who keep spouting about how “the man has to pay” seem to be implying that the mother is just sucking up some extra income so she can live high on the hog. Custodial mothers virtually always would have a higher standard of living without their children. Both parents are paying. It’s just that one of them, in addition to contributing to the monetary costs, is also putting in a disproportionately large fraction of the time and attention required by children.
Look, I think it’s terrible for a mother to hide a child for five years and then spring it on the father. I wouldn’t mind seeing her do jail time for it. But the charges would be interfering with the father’s opportunity to form a relationship with his child, thereby irreparably injuring both the father and the child. (The child has likely also suffered a monetary injury, but I’m not sure the mother has a fiduciary responsibility to the child in this context).
yosemitebabe, I’m curious what you think of the situation I set forth. Would you be willing to consider that a man and the woman should be able to have a pre-existing agreement that if a pregnancy occurs, it will be aborted (with at least half of that financial responsibility owned by the man), and if the woman changes her mind after conception, it’s her responsibility?
In this situation, I don’t see 1) how the man is being irresponsible (he has perfectly honest intentions and a plan for dealing with the consequences), or 2) how the fault lies anywhere except with the woman.
Unfortunately, the law doesn’t allow this, and it probably gets good honest people in trouble (like I almost did).
galt: until the law supports such a scenario, a man would be STUPID to assume that just because she says she’d have an abortion before the fact, she’ll actually go through with it. You take your chances. Relying on someone else to follow through with something like that is really risky. If she changes her mind, you pay. And it is more likely with something like abortion, she might have a change of heart. (Some people just don’t know how they are going to react to certain emotional life-changing events until they are actually in the MIDDLE of them. Then everything looks different.) So why risk so much, on her word alone? Sounds kinda foolish, if you ask me.
I doubt the law will ever support such a scenario, but if it did, it still seems to short change the kid. (Who is, in case we forget, a human being that was brought into the world by TWO people, not one.)